In 1971, OSHA adopted its current standards for personal protective
equipment (PPE) from national consensus standards under section 6(a) of the
OSH Act. Since then, advances in PPE technology have resulted in greater
occupational protection in workplaces where equipment innovations have been
adopted. In this final rule, OSHA promulgates a nationwide standard for PPE
that reflects these improved means of hazard prevention.

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) requires that a Regulatory Impact
Analysis be prepared for any "significant regulatory action". A "significant"
rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or
state, local or tribal governments or communities. In addition, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires an analysis of
whether a regulation will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Finally, section 6(f) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act provides that, where a party has challenged the validity of an
OSHA standard in the Court of Appeals, the determinations of OSHA (such as
findings regarding the nature and severity of workplace hazards and the
feasibility of identified abatement measures) shall be conclusive if
supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.

OSHA determined, based on the Agency's Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis [1] and its review of the rulemaking record, that the final rule for
General Industry PPE is not a "significant regulatory action" for the
purposes of review under Executive Order 12866. However, in order to satisfy
the various statutory requirements placed upon the Agency and to further
explain why OSHA has classified this regulatory action as "non-significant"
for Executive Order 12866 purposes, OSHA presents this Final Regulatory
Impact, Regulatory Flexibility and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Industry Profile

Based on a report prepared by Eastern Research Group under contract to the
Department of Labor [2], OSHA has determined that the hazards addressed by
the personal protective equipment standard are present in varying degrees in
virtually all workplaces covered by the OSHA General Industry standards (29
CFR 1910). The extent of the rule's impact will vary by industry depending on
the hazards, the types of occupational activity and current practices
regarding PPE use.

Many types of PPE have been in widespread use in industry for many years.
However, until recently very little statistical data existed to determine the
number of employees who either are using PPE or who should be wearing PPE by
virtue of the hazards to which they are exposed.

OSHA's inspection data document that approximately 3.5 percent of all
planned safety inspections result in citations under the existing PPE
standards. The inspection data identifies the standard industrial
classification (SIC) of the establishment, size of plant workforce, union
status, and information related to the inspection itself; less frequently
reported are data on degree of hazard present in workplaces, the number of
workers exposed to the hazard, or the type of PPE required.

In its Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis [1], OSHA examined injury
statistics for affected industry sectors. Among the accident databases
searched by OSHA were Work Injury Reports (WIR) published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS). These reports examine cases where a worker was
injured and provide evidence that many workers are not wearing adequate
personal protective equipment. Based on the BLS data, relatively few firms
with serious recordable injury cases have performed a formal assessment of
the potential hazards in their workplace. In addition, little training was
offered to workers regarding the importance of using protective equipment in
these firms.

To obtain accurate information on the need for personal protective equipment
and the extent to which that need is being met, OSHA conducted a national
survey in 1989 [3,4,5]. The survey sampled 5,361 establishments, representing
1.1 million establishments in 61 SIC groups. The survey identified the
hazards related to industrial processes and the types of PPE required when
working in or near these processes. The survey solicited information on PPE
practices and safety procedures and assessed whether engineering controls
such as protective guards or overhead nets were in place. Answers to survey
questions were used to evaluate the appropriateness of PPE use. Survey
questions also addressed PPE training and hazard assessment. (See the
background document and appendices in this docket for more detailed
information on the survey and supporting data related to this analysis.)

Table 1 shows the major industry groups covered by the PPE standard, the
total number of affected establishments, total affected employment, number of
production employees and number of employees exposed to PPE-related hazards.
Of the 16.9 million production workers, the survey identified 11.7 million
exposed workers within 1.1 million establishments who should be wearing some
form of PPE. These numbers are lower than was indicated in the PRIA, due to a
refinement in the analysis regarding affected population. Occupational
categories identified by OSHA as having a significant degree of required PPE
use include craft, operating, maintenance and material handling employees.
These categories encompass most production employees and are most likely to
be affected by this standard. However, as noted in the PRIA [1, p. II-2-4],
OSHA has previously estimated over a million other workers may also be
exposed to hazards requiring PPE use in the rest of general industry(1).

__________
Footnote(1) As was indicated in the PRIA, while all general industry
workers are potentially affected by these standards, exposed workers are
heavily concentrated in certain occupations and in certain industries.
Building upon information provided for the PRIA and comments to the
record, this final analysis focuses on those groups of workers and
industries judged to have a heavy concentration of PPE use. In this
analysis population at risk was determined by survey results indicating a
hazard that required the use of PPE. The PRIA had used the term
"population at risk" to refer to all workers in two "production worker"
job categories in general industry [1, p. II-1-5]. It should be noted that
this analysis in no way implies that other workers may not be exposed to
hazards preventable by PPE, but simply that the great majority are found
in certain specific job categories and industries.

From survey results OSHA developed a profile of the affected population by
exposed bodily area (anatomical part), summarized in Table 2. As the table
shows, almost 8.8 million workers are exposed to foot injury, while the
potential for hand injury exists for 4.7 million workers. Other anatomical
parts covered by this rule are eyes (2.8 million workers at risk), head (1.9
million workers) and face (381,000 workers).

TABLE 2 - Number of Employees and Parts of the Body Requiring
Personal Protective Equipment Among the Population at Risk

The existing and revised standards for subpart I require personal protective
equipment wherever necessary by reason of the hazards of processes,
environment or worker activity. New 1910.132(d) requires workplace hazard
assessment and new 1910.132(f) requires employee training in the use of PPE.
The revised standards for eye and face protection, protective headwear and
foot protection update, prospectively, references to pertinent consensus
standards. OSHA expects that employers will be able to comply with the new
and revised requirements without difficulty, because the means of compliance
are readily available and because the final rule "grandfathers" equipment
that complies with the existing standards.

OSHA anticipates that the new requirements for hazard assessment,
prohibition of defective and damaged equipment, and employee training can be
implemented with available technical personnel and other resources. OSHA's
survey probed the extent to which firms have already adopted the elements of
a PPE program. Comments in the record were also evaluated in order to
establish current industry practices.

On the basis of evidence in the record, including results from the OSHA PPE
survey, OSHA has determined that the final PPE standard is both
technologically and economically feasible.

Costs of Compliance

OSHA estimated compliance costs using data on current practices and exposed
population from the PPE survey. Aggregating costs across industry sectors,
OSHA estimates a total annual compliance cost of new provisions in the
revised rule will result in a cost of $52.4 million. Total compliance costs
by industry sector are presented in Table 3.

OSHA's survey identified 433,149 establishments which need to take steps to
come into compliance with the new provisions for hazard assessment. (Of
825,265 affected establishments, approximately 47 percent already had a
hazard assessment program in place.) The cost to conduct hazard assessments
was estimated to be $15.9 million per year, assuming a reassessment is
conducted once every five years.

The new provision for PPE training would affect approximately 10.8 million
employees estimated in need of PPE training, at an annual cost of $36.5
million.

Estimates for the cost of providing PPE training differ from those in
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis due to comments received and results
from OSHA's PPE survey. This information indicated that the problem of PPE
non-usage is considerably more widespread than originally estimated.
Correspondingly, this indicated that the population requiring PPE training
was larger than originally estimated.

Assessment of Hazards and Benefits

Injuries

OSHA believes that the risk of fatality and injury to workers is
unacceptably high among sectors affected by the revised personal protective
equipment standard. The revised PPE standard is designed to enhance
compliance with existing requirements and ensure future compliance related to
a heightened level of hazard awareness and training. These changes to the
standard should help to eliminate or reduce accidents within industries
subject to the rule.

The standard has performance-oriented provisions addressing eye, face, hand,
head and foot hazards that allow employers to adopt the most up-to-date PPE
for use in their establishment. The flexibility to substitute new materials
and technologies should produce more comfortable and protective PPE. An
increase in worker acceptance and use of PPE should translate into additional
benefits. OSHA's expectation is that increased use of better equipment will
prevent or lessen the severity of many incidents.

According to BLS statistics in Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the
United States by Industry, 1989 [6], there were a total of 1.6 million
lost-workday cases and 1.8 million non-lost-workday cases during the survey
year. Eastern Research Group [7] analyzed survey-related data, which were
used to extract the number of these injuries that were related to use (or
nonuse) of PPE. In turn, BLS Work Injury Reports were analyzed to estimate
what portion of those injuries related to inconsistent or inappropriate use
of PPE, or lack of hazard identification. Injuries prevented in significantly
affected industry sectors are shown in Table 4. Since injuries will be
prevented in some other industry sectors as well, total estimates are
conservative.

OSHA estimates that 712,000 lost workdays(2) and 65,000 non-lost workday
cases will be realized from compliance with requirements for employee
training and workplace hazard assessment. These benefits will be gained
through selection of more appropriate PPE, increased awareness of hazards and
improved consistency in use. These benefit estimates exceed those of the PRIA
because OSHA has determined that current compliance with the PPE standards is
poorer than was estimated in the PRIA. In addition, OSHA believes these
requirements will enhance compliance with existing requirements, thereby
preventing more injuries; however, the extent of these benefits are difficult
to quantify.

__________
Footnote(2) Recent research by Arthur Oleinick identifies a possible
underestimation of lost workdays when reference periods are bounded by
calendar years, as in the BLS survey. For elaboration of this point, see
Oleinick [8].

OSHA also estimated the number of fatalities associated with the absence of
personal protective equipment. From an analysis of BLS, NIOSH and OSHA
accident data, OSHA estimates that 125 fatal head injuries occur annually.
While most fatal head injuries are the result of crushing injuries, falls,
explosions and other traumatic events beyond the scope of this standard, some
are preventable with the use of head protection. Based on a review of OSHA
accident abstracts and an understanding of the rule's scope and
effectiveness, OSHA estimates that 4 head injury fatality cases are
preventable each year through compliance with the new provisions of the
standard.

Cost Savings

Based upon these estimated reduction in injuries, OSHA estimates that
society will reap substantial economic benefits from prevented injuries. Lost
work time injuries can be particularly expensive.

PPE is uniquely effective in preventing eye injuries, for example, which can
be severely debilitating. Dr. Leonard Parver [9, pp. 28-29] of Georgetown
University's ophthalmology department elaborated on this cost to employers:

These injuries tend to be very devastating. They have severe impact on the
patient in terms of vision, and the costs are phenomenal. We estimate the
costs of hospitalizing these patients at $250 million per year. That's just
for the hospital stay; that doesn't include lost work days and compensation
costs. This is a very significant problem, and very, very preventable. We're
not talking about reinventing the wheel here. We have the means of doing
this. We have adequate eye protective gear. It's a matter of educating the
workforce that this is necessary.

While employers typically bear only a fraction of the costs related to
injuries, these costs can be substantial. Employers specifically will benefit
from reduced lost production time, administrative time spent preparing
insurance claims and accident reports and replacing injured workers. Based on
a 1981 study by Levitt and coworkers [10], OSHA estimates the cost to
employers from the average lost worktime injury is at least $4000(3). This
cost includes:

__________
Footnote(3) Levitt's wage rates were adjusted to reflect current wage
conditions in general industry [11]. In light of the National Safety
Council estimates presented later in this document, given the debilitating
severity of many PPE accidents (eye, head), and the surge in workers
compensation costs in recent years, an estimate of $4000 per injury is
likely to be conservative.
* Administrative cost of handling insurance company claims.
* Wages paid to other workers for the time not worked (work
interrupted).
* Cost of scheduling and funding overtime necessitated by the accident.
* Cost to find and train a replacement worker.
* Extra wage cost to rehabilitate the returning worker at a reduced
capacity.
* Cost to clean up, repair, or replace damage from the accident.
* Cost of wages for supervision associated with the accident.
* Cost for safety and clerical personnel to record and investigate the
accident.

Other nonquantifiable costs associated with accidents, such as increased
anxiety among non-injured workers, the loss of employee goodwill towards the
employer, and the impact on public perception of a company and its products
were not considered in the Levitt study.

Based on the Levitt study and the estimated 37,924 lost workdays prevented,
OSHA estimates that the rule will save firms over $150 million annually.

However, as noted above, the cost of workplace injuries is typically borne
primarily by employees themselves. The National Safety Council recently
calculated the societal cost per lost worktime injury at $27,000 [7,p. 35],
by factoring in long-term wage losses, medical expenses, administrative
expenses and miscellaneous employer costs. Applying this figure to OSHA's
estimate of 37,924 lost workday injuries prevented annually, revisions to
this rule should save society (employees, employers and third parties) over
$1 billion annually.

These estimates of the economic benefits of the rule may be conservative,
since the benefits analysis focuses on injuries prevented, not reduced
severity of injuries. To the extent the rule results in nonlost workday
injuries, as opposed to disabling lost workday injuries, the economic
benefits may be greater yet. In sum, OSHA estimates the rule will save
society over $1 billion annually, dwarfing the initial $52 million
investment. Employers themselves should save over $150 million through full
compliance with revisions to the PPE standard, approximately three times the
estimated cost of compliance.

Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

OSHA analyzed the potential economic impact of the revised PPE standard and
has determined that none of the major industry groups subject to the standard
would experience a significant economic burden as a result of compliance,
even before cost savings to employers are factored in. Table 5 presents
average compliance cost, revenue, profit, and economic impacts of the
standard for establishments in affected industry groups. If all of the
compliance costs are passed through to the consumer, OSHA estimates that the
average price increase would be negligible, less than 0.001 percent,
calculated as the ratio of total compliance cost to industry sales. The
maximum price increase in any industry would be less than 0.005 percent.
Given the minuscule price increases necessary to cover these safety
investments, employers should be able to pass along compliance costs to their
customers. However, even if all costs were absorbed by the affected firms,
the average reduction in profits would be approximately 0.01 percent, the
largest being 0.06 percent. OSHA, therefore, does not expect the revised
standard to have a significant economic impact on affected firms or
industries(4).

__________
Footnote(4) In the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis [1], OSHA
analyzed the entire spectrum of affected industries, and had determined no
significant economic impact would result on establishments on any
industry, with substantially less impact in those establishments without
heavy PPE use. This determination was reached even though the PRIA
included costs not directly attributable to the proposal, resulting in a
total cost estimate which was nearly twice the cost estimated in this
final analysis. Accordingly, OSHA reaffirms that establishments in those
industries will incur minimal economic impact.
TABLE 5 - Economic Impact of the PPE Standard on
Affected Establishments (Gross Costs)

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of USC 601 et seq.), OSHA
also analyzed the economic impact on small establishments (19 or fewer
employees), looking particularly for signs that the rule would pose excessive
burdens per employee, relative to impacts faced by larger entities. OSHA has
determined that, in relation to compliance with the standard, equipment
purchases and labor utilization will to a great extent depend positively on
size of workforce; smaller firms are not expected to incur relatively higher
costs per worker. As shown in Table 6, OSHA estimates that the average price
impact for small establishments will be 0.002 percent, while profit impacts
will not exceed 0.04 percent under the assumption that all compliance costs
are absorbed by firms. These impacts are judged to be relatively minor;
therefore, the PPE standard is economically feasible for small
establishments.

The revisions to the PPE standard have been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321, et seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40
CFR part 1500 through 1517), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures
(29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has determined that the
new PPE standard will have no significant environmental impact.

2. Eastern Research Group. Economic Analysis of the Revised General Industry
Personal Protection Equipment Standard (CFR Part 1910.132 - 1910.140).
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration under Contract No. J-9-F-0057. Arlington, MA. October 1988, as
described in Exhibit 4-6.

11. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Industry Profile Study of a Standard for
Control of Hazardous Energy Sources Including Lockout/Tagout Procedures.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, under Contract J-9-F-2-0047, Exhibit 3-15, Docket S-012A.

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.